V SRINIVASA MUDALIAR Vs. SRI NAGAREESWARAR DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This civil revision petition has been filed by the tenant as revision petitioner, against the order and decretal order dated 30.12.1996 and made in E.A.No.314 of 1996 in O.S.No.459 of 1975 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram.

(2.) THE facts that are necessary for disposal of this civil revision petition are as follows: THE respondent herein, who is the landlord/plaintiff before the trial court in O.S.No.459 of 1975 filed the suit for ejectment of the revision petitioner herein/ tenant/defendant from the premises described in the plaint. THE revision petitioner as defendant filed a petition under Sec.9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?) in I.A.No.1467 of 1975 to sell the suit vacant site to the revision petitioner for the price to be fixed by the court. Against the order of dismissal of the abovesaid petition, an appeal in C.M.A.No.43 of 1977 was filed before the appellate court and the appeal was allowed thereby remanding the matter back to the trial court with a direction to fix the market value of the land and to comply with Sec.9 of the Act. THE market value of the land was fixed by the trial court at Rs.300 percent and a direction was given for deposit of the said amount. THE respondent herein, aggrieved at the order passed by the trial court, preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.9 of 1985 and the said appeal was also allowed to redetermine the value of the suit property. THE revision filed by the revision petitioner herein as the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.828 of 1990 was decided with direction to fix the market value at Rs.500 per cent. Certain mistakes crept in the order of civil revision petition and the same was rectified by this Court by order dated 22.10.1992. THE balance amount to be deposited by the revision petitioner herein was also deposited as per the direction of the High Court of Judicature, Madras. It is thereafter the revision petitioner herein has filed a petition in E.P.No.306 of 1993 on 2.3.1993 for a direction to the respondent herein to execute the sale deed with regard to the suit vacant site described in the plaint and on failure to execute the sale deed, requested the court to execute the sale deed on behalf of the respondent herein. During the pendency of this execution proceeding, Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Tamil Nadu Act No.2 of 1996) (hereinafter referred to as ?the amended Act?) has come into force on 11.1.1996. As per the provisions of the said amended Act, certain pending proceedings will abate and the said Act will not invalidate any suit or proceeding in which a decree or order passed has been executed or satisfied in full before the said date as per the Proviso to Sec.3 of the said amended Act. In view of the abovesaid circumstances, the respondent herein filed a petition in E.A.No.314 of 1996 in E.P.No.306 of 1993 in O.S.No.459 of 1975 to declare the proceeding initiated by the revision petitioner herein and pending in E.P.No.306 of 1993 as abated in view of the amended Act 2 of 1996.

(3.) THE question that has to be considered in this revision is whether the proceeding in this matter was pending on 11.1.1996 or the decree was executed or satisfied in full. THE fact remains a decree has been obtained by the revision petitioner herein for sale of the property described in the plaint for the price fixed by the court, by filing a petition under Sec.9 of the Act and the revision petitioner has also deposited the amount in court, which remains not withdrawn by the Devasthanam yet. It is because of the non-execution of the sale deed as per the decree passed by the court by withdrawing the amount deposited in court, the revision petitioner has come forward with this petition in E.P.No.306 of 1993 for a direction to the Devasthanam, the respondent herein to execute the sale deed in favour of the revision petitioner or in the alternative for execution of the sale deed by the court on behalf of the respondent herein. That would show that the purpose for which the petition filed under Sec.9 of the Act by the revision petitioner, has not been completed in spite of the fact of deposit of the amount as ordered by the court and execution proceeding was initiated to realise the fruit of the decree already passed in his favour. Unless the sale deed is executed by the Devasthanam in favour of the revision petitioner herein or in the alternative by the court on behalf of the Devasthanam, the fruit of the decree cannot be realised by the revision petitioner. THE proceeding will come to an end immediately on execution of sale deed either by the Devasthanam or by the court on behalf of the Devasthanam in this matter. Since that stage has not been reached and since the execution proceeding for achieving such object is still pending before competent court, this Court is not able to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the proceeding is not pending before the court and it has already come to a finality. Proviso to Sec.3 of the amended Act makes it very clear that the amended Act will have application only if the decree or order passed by the competent court has not been executed or not satisfied in full. In this case, the decree has not been executed by means of execution of a sale deed by the Devasthanam in favour of the revision petitioner or the decree has also not been fully satisfied. A conjoint reading of Sec.3 read with Proviso to the abovesaid Section would go to show that this Act will have application to the pending proceeding in this matter, in view of the pendency of execution proceeding and in view of the fact that the decree has not been executed or satisfied in full.